Not My Canada, Mr. Trudeau

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at a Pride Parade, photo: The Globe and Mail

FOR several months, I have grappled with whether or not I should file taxes to the Canadian government this year. The reason is that, on March 8th, 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed to spend $650 million over the next three years on “sexual” and “reproductive health rights” worldwide—essentially, to pay for contraception, abortion and more overseas.

…we will support local groups and international groups who advocate for women’s rights, including abortion. —International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, The Globe and Mail, March 8th, 2017

Several years ago, I decided that this ministry would not file for “charitable tax status,” because, with it, came the virtual gag order to avoid saying anything “political.” But such status has served to silence many clergy and laymen in the country who don’t want to lose the ability to issue tax receipts. [1]cf. Counting the Cost And thus, the steady march of overturning the entire moral order of this country has continued with barely a peep of resistance, save for the odd cardinal or bishop. However, I have a duty, as does every other Catholic and man or woman of good will, to resist the devastating social experiment unfolding before us.

Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. (Matt 22:21)

But that means I’m also going to give to God what belongs to God: the witness to truth.

CANADA UNRAVELING

I was a youngster when the father of Justin came to power: Pierre Elliot Trudeau. I remember drawing his angular face on my notebook; his affinity for roses; and how the French swooned over him. But as I got older, I learned something else: Trudeau, a “practicing Catholic,” had an agenda that the majority of Canadians did not favour: to make abortion legal, divorce easier, and sexual perversion more permissible. Trudeau’s slogan that “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation” became the driving force of his social agenda and an eventual paradox: the state has not only interfered with the bedroom, but is now barring any other voice from entering it, notably, that of the Church. Trudeau was the champion of what Benedict XVI would later call a new “abstract religion”, with moral relativism as its creed.

…you can’t ask the totality of the people to accept my private morality as theirs. You have to make sure that the Criminal Code… represents not the private morals of the people who happen to be in government at that time, but represents what the people feel to be the basic public standards of ethical conduct. —Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, BBC , July 13, 1970; jeanchretien.libertyca.net

Trudeau used the veil of democracy to then impose his “standards” on an unsuspecting Canadian public.

Trudeau saw to it that the legalization of abortion was enacted successfully in May 1969. Afterwards, no opposition to the new law was tolerated in his cabinet or even from the public: a demand for a review in the spring of 1975, which had over a million signatures, was buried swiftly and efficiently. A climax of sorts was reached on 22 May, 1975 when, according to the TheGlobe and Mail, Trudeau hailed Dr. Henry Morgentaler as a ‘good friend, a fine humanitarian and a true humanist’. As late as 27 November, 1981, five days before the final vote on the repatriation of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights, Trudeau personally and again intervened in the abortion controversy by preventing members of his party from voting for an amendment introduced by David Crombie (PC), that ‘nothing in the Charter affects the authority of Parliament to legislate in respect to abortion’. —The Secular State, Fr. Alphonse de Valk, pamphlet, 1985; jeanchretien.libertyca.net

The state would then force Canadians to pay for whatever consequences would flow from the bedroom and the ultimate collapse of morality in the country: abortion as a “health” procedure, divorce ramifications, health care for an explosion of sexually transmitted diseases, mental health breakdowns, and on and on. But in typical fashion of what we’ve come to hear from “Catholic” politicians, Trudeau said of his “personal” views…

I think that generally speaking, abortion is wrong and marriage should be forever… —Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, The Toronto Star, Feb. 23, 1982

…but this was only one side of a startling dualism:

I think she should have to answer for [her abortion] and explain. Now, whether it should be to three doctors or one doctor or to a priest or a bishop or to her mother-in-law is a question you might want to argue. … You do have a right over your own body—it is your body. But the fetus is not your body; it’s someone else’s body. And if you kill it, you’ll have to explain. —Montreal Star, 1972; LifeSiteNews.com

Trudeau’s moral dichotomy was repeated four years later:

I consider the fetus, the infant in the womb is a living being, a being we must respect, and I do not think we can kill him arbitrarily. —September 25, 1976; Edmundston, New Brunswick; jeanchretien.libertyca.net

The billion dollar abortion industry (that also trades in baby body parts now) denies that the fetus is a person. Of course they do. That would be admitting… murder. But Pierre Trudeau has found a post-mortum cheerleader more attuned to his views in radical feminist, Camila Paglia:

I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship. —Salon, Sept. 10th, 2008

“Abortion is murder”, says Paglia. “Abortion is killing”, said Trudeau.

And you’re going to pay for it now in the rest of the world, says his son, Justin Trudeau.

JUSTIN THE TOLERANT?

In the 1990’s, the Liberal Party of Canada railed against the Conservative Party of Canada during the election cycle, warning the country that the Conservatives had a “hidden social agenda.” They raised alarms that the Conservatives might overturn “women’s rights” and turn the clock backwards on social “progress.” But as it turns out, the hidden social agenda was in the Liberal Party’s plan all along.

In 2005 under Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, gay marriage was legalized in the country—only the fourth nation in the world to do so. But Canadians rejected his government in an astounding election thumping. Stephen Harper of the Conservatives rose to power. There was a surge of hope among many Canadians (much like in America right now) that, finally, the cry of the unborn would be heard.

However, the liberal voice was louder, and threatening: “The Conservatives still have a hidden agenda! Watch out! They are intolerant, opposed to women’s rights, and hate gays! They are backwards, patriarchal, and out of touch!” Sadly, Harper buckled to political correctness, forbidding even so much as a debate on the issue of abortion in the House of Commons.

Harper ran two terms, and managed the country’s debt well… but his aloof style and lack of moral strength appealed to few on either spectrum.

Then, in 2013, along came a young, vibrant face who portrayed himself as tolerant and progressive. He was the face of “change.” In fact, he would become the poster child for every single politically correct issue. He assumed the role of champion of abortion “rights”, the friend of feminists, the overseer against Islamophobia, the flag-bearer of LGBT, crusader of climate change, and guardian of gender ideology. Whatever the winds of relativism have blown in, Trudeau has made his own personal tornado. And that, in just a couple short years.

But if his father Pierre was open to ‘a priest or a bishop’ having a voice in the debate over the morality of killing the unborn, his son is not. When Justin became the leader of his party, he said he would permit “open nominations.” But in a move that surprised even some of his supporters, he banned any future candidates who hold a pro-life position. In fact, he said he would go further:

How do you feel about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? How do you feel about same-sex marriage? How do you feel about pro-choice—where are you on that? —PM Justin Trudeau, yahoonews.com, May 7th, 2014,

JUSTIN THE DICTATOR?

But this should have surprised no one. During his election campaign, Trudeau was asked which nation’s administration he admired most. His answer stunned more than a few:

There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime… having a dictatorship where you can do whatever you wanted, that I find quite interesting. —The National Post, Nov. 8th, 2013

The Canadian Asian community was outraged. Victims of the Chinese regime—noted for its brutal human rights violations—came forward calling his remarks “foolish” and naive. [2]CBC news, Nov. 9th, 2013 But were they naive? The truth is that his
father Pierre was known to admire dictatorships from an early age.

According to Bob Plamondon’s recent book, The Truth About Trudeau, the elder Mr. Trudeau was complimentary toward several leftist regimes in his day, including Soviet Russia, Fidel Castro’s Cuba and China under Chairman Mao. —Jen Gerson, The National Post, Nov. 8th, 2013

So really, it should’ve been no surprise when his son Justin went on to praise the late dictator, Fidel Castro… also known for his human rights abuses. After his death in late 2016, Justin marked Castro’s passing with “deep sorrow” saying he was “a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century,” and “a legendary revolutionary and orator.”

I know my father was very proud to call him a friend. —Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, The New York Times, Nov. 26th, 2016

US Senator, Marco Rubio of Florida tweeted:

Is this a real statement or parody? Because if this is a real statement from the PM of Canada it is shameful and embarrassing. —Nov. 26th, 2016; The Guardian

Columnist Michelle Malkin opined in The National Review:

Our neighbors to the north are now discovering what disillusioned Barack Obama worshipers realized too late: Beneath the shiny packaging of supermodel progressivism lies the same old decrepit culture of corruption. —Nov. 30th, 2016; nationalreview.com

In a word, socialism. Nonetheless, Canadians seem more pre-occuppied with hockey or Trudeau’s charming looks than one of the most progressive social re-engineering programs in the Western World. But Trudeau’s amoral agenda hasn’t gone completely unaddressed by the clergy…

NOT MY CANADA

The Bishop of Hamilton and President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops blasted Trudeau’s recent commitment of two thirds of a billion dollars to promoting contraception and abortion overseas. Bishop Douglas Crosby called it “a reprehensible example of Western cultural imperialism and an attempt to impose misplaced but so-called Canadian “values” on other nations and people.” [3]“Letter to Prime Minister Trudeau on Money for Reproductive Rights”; March 10th, 2017; hamiltondiocese.com

But he was ignored.

Passing over real injustices to women abroad, such as no right to vote, lack of access to education, female infanticide, rape, child brides, genital mutilation, etc., Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, repeated that “sexual reproductive rights and the right to safe and accessible abortions” are “Canadian values” and the “core of our foreign policy.” [4]cf. The Star, June 6th, 2017

I’m sorry, but not my Canada, Mr. Trudeau. Not my values. Not the values of tens of millions of Canadians.

Bishop Douglas Crosby fired back on behalf of the “rest” of the country:

…has Canada forgotten that for a considerable population (both within Canada and abroad) the unborn child is regarded as a human being created by God and worthy of life and love? This moral position can be found among Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Orthodox Christians, a number of Protestant Christians, Roman and Eastern Catholics, in addition to many other people of good will, including non-believers. We question whether it was wise or responsible to claim abortion advocacy and “sexual reproductive rights” as the core of Canadian foreign policy – as national values with which to enlighten others – knowing full well that they are not only legally contentious but completely contrary to the deeply held convictions of many both within and beyond Canada’s borders.

…to state that abortion, inter alia, is a Canadian value, is also incorrect in principle. How could such a statement be made in Parliament when the Supreme Court of Canada itself held in R. v Morgentaler (1988) that there was no constitutional basis in the Charter for the right to abortion on demand? …in actual fact all seven judges of the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn! —”Letter to the Honourable Chrystia Freeland”, June 29th, 2017

I was raised with both a deep faith and a regular practice of Catholicism. We were in church every Sunday that we were with my dad. We read the Bible as a family every Sunday night. And we said our prayers just about every night together as a family. —”Q and A: Justin Trudeau in his own words”, Oct. 18th, 2014; ottawacitizen.com

Though his faith lapsed for a time, Trudeau says that, after his brother’s death, he ‘re-found’ himself and a ‘deep faith and belief in God.’ So how is it that Trudeau’s political life is in complete contradiction to His Catholic faith, like the kind of moral schizophrenia his father displayed (and frankly that we see in far too many “Catholic” politicians)?

In the same interview, he made two key admissions: he considers himself ‘rational and scientific and logical and rigorous’ and ‘very aware of the separation of church and state in my political thinking.’ In a word, Trudeau is a true child of modernism who has combined the errors of the Enlightenment period into a political movement that has no better description than the one given by Pope Benedict XVI:

…a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing as definite, and which leaves as the ultimate measure only one’s ego and desires. —Cardinal Ratzinger (POPE BENEDICT XVI) pre-conclave Homily, April 18th, 2005

Ironically, reason, science, and logic are flying out the door in Trudeau’s Canada. The science of the unborn child is unequivocal that, from the moment of conception, everything necessary to develop into an adult human being is present. The only “crime” of the fetus at that point is that it is younger than you and me…. Reason tells us that the union between a man and a woman is the building block of every society, an anthropological fact…. And logic tells us that our bodies define us as either “male” or “female.” But not in Trudeau’s world, which Pope Benedict rightly calls “an abstract, negative religion [that] is being made into a tyrannical standard that everyone must follow.” [5]Light of the World, Interview with Peter Seewald, p. 52

In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished… the reality is in fact such that certain forms of behaviour and thinking are being presented as the only reasonable ones and, therefore, as the only appropriately human ones. Christianity finds itself exposed now to an intolerant pressure that at first ridicules it—as belonging to a perverse, false thinking—and then tries to deprive it of breathing space in the name of an ostensible rationality. —POPE BENEDICT, Light of the World, Interview with Peter Seewald, p. 53

So, while there’s still opportunity to breath the air of freedom, I want to say clearly, Mr. Trudeau—before you cash my tax cheque this year: your values, your beliefs, your vision…? They are not mine, they are not our Church’s, and they are not that of millions of my fellow Canadians. There is a higher law we are obligated to follow, one that pre-dates this country and which will remain until the end of time: the natural law written in the heart of man, and the moral law revealed by your God, and mine.

The Church… intends to continue to raise her voice in defense of mankind, even when policies of States and the majority of public opinion moves in the opposite direction. Truth, indeed, draws strength from itself and not from the amount of consent it arouses.
—POPE BENEDICT XVI, Vatican, March 20, 2006

It is a part of the Church’s mission “to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2246